Chief Justice John Roberts made an excellent ruling yesterday on the ACA. This led some to hope that he would side with the majority in today's ruling on Gay Marriage. Even an old cynic like myself thought that Roberts might be softening his hard right stance on almost every issue before the Court. Perhaps he was concerned about his legacy and more willing to compromise.
His vote on equality dispelled any doubt that Rogers views were little changed. But when I read this statement from his dissent from the ruling on TPM, I realized that he was an unmitigated wingnut.:
"Indeed, however heartened the proponents of same-sex marriage might be on this day, it is worth acknowledging what they have lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause," Roberts wrote in his dissent. "And they lose this just when the winds of change were freshening at their backs."
And he continues:
"Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view," Roberts wrote. "That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept."
Roberts then goes completely off the reservation by claiming this decision on equality wasn't appropriate for the court to rule on. This in nonsense. See Loving v Virginia. This is exactly the type of case that falls within the purview of the Supreme Court.
Closing debate tends to close minds,"People denied a voice are less likely to accept the ruling of a court on an issue that does not seem to be the sort of thing courts usually decide."
Roberts said that those in favor of gay marriage could "by all means celebrate today’s decision."
"But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it,
It has everything to do with the Constitution. Unlike yesterday's Obamacare ruling, which was more a housekeeping issue than a Constitutional one, this was a straight-up 14th Amendment argument. Roberts is writing more like a politician more than a Constitutional Lawyer. Perhaps that was the same role he was playing in rescuing heir Republicans from the dire consequences that would ensure from millions of Americans losing their Healthcare coverage under Obamacare.